From: | Etsuro Fujita <etsuro(dot)fujita(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Minor cleanup of partbounds.c |
Date: | 2020-09-10 09:10:37 |
Message-ID: | CAPmGK17Ke5Kni=E3LHAm-Ay92PpKoHuhkoh8q1ypQsAZp77fkA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 2:05 AM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On 2020-Sep-09, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> > Here is a patch for minor cleanup of the partbounds.c changes made by
> > commit c8434d64c: 1) removes a useless assignment (in normal builds)
>
> LGTM.
>
> > and 2) improves comments a little.
>
> No objection to changing "bounds" to "range bounds".
>
> I think the point other is to replace the only appearance of "dummy
> relation" to better match the extensive use of "dummy partition" in this
> file. The concept of a "dummy relation" is well established in the
> planner. I didn't know if "dummy partition" is itself a concept
> (apparently in the newfangled partition-wise join stuff), or just
> glorified wording to say "a dummy relation that happens to be a
> partition". Looking at is_dummy_partition, apparently a dummy partition
> is either a dummy relation or a partition that doesn't have a
> RelOptInfo. So my conclusion is that this wording is okay to change
> too.
Cool!
I pushed the patch. Thanks for reviewing!
Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | tsunakawa.takay@fujitsu.com | 2020-09-10 09:16:23 | RE: Implement UNLOGGED clause for COPY FROM |
Previous Message | tsunakawa.takay@fujitsu.com | 2020-09-10 09:01:44 | RE: Global snapshots |